On 2006-12-29 17:44, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Dave is probably correct that the specific criteria are of broader >> interest than just ADs, WG chairs, editors, and process wonks, and >> might become even more perfect with broader review, but that's another >> issue. >> >> And, since the criteria are public, I'm sure the IESG would be >> interested in feedback on the criteria,
Yes. That was indeed the point of publishing them in the first place. Doesn't mean we have to agree of course ;-) I think most of what I would say about your feedback has been said by others. But a few follow-ups follow: On 2006-12-30 22:32, John Leslie wrote: ... > This is _not_ the general case. For the general case, I must agree > with Dave Crocker: > ] > ] This is perhaps the scariest of the criteria. It says that a > ] knowledgeable, motivated constituency can spend months on solving a > ] problem that it needs to have solved, and then others who have not > ] participated in the work can come along and sabotage it. > > Actual IETF consensus (not just the lack of adverse comments during > Last-Call) is very hard to achieve. Requiring it for ordinary WG work > is non-scalable. (We can't reasonably expect to accomplish it more > than perhaps a half-dozen times a year.) You can't prove a negative (nobody disagrees) but you can prove a positive (at least one individual disagrees). > This DISCUSS criteria (alleging lack of IETF-wide consensus), as > written, allows any AD (hopefully not the one shepherding it!) to > effectively block the work of a WG. Sam's "solution" amounts to > negotiation among non-players over _how_ to judge the prejudices of > folks who mostly don't understand the issues. There is that danger, but there is equally a danger of group-think whereby a WG chooses to ignore a generic issue. And even if only one person blows the whistle on that group-think during IETF Last Call, that is something the IETF needs to deal with. > Further Sam's "solution" tends to favor re-running the Last-Call > if you don't like the results. This is a very bad practice. It > causes everyone who pays attention to believe there must be problems > below the surface; and strongly tends to produce a situation in > which consensus looks impossible (because too many issues have been > raised). I think that misrepresents actual practice, which is to refer the issue back to the WG and make sure they actually discuss it. > In the normal case, any DISCUSS should go back to the WG. With > technical issues named, addressing them is workable. With a demand > for review by particular experts, there's at least a place to start. > With "So-and-so thinks somebody somewhere wouldn't like this," there's > really no place to start. :^( Agreed, with the qualification that if *big* changes are made as a result, a second IETF Last Call may be appropriate. On 2007-01-01 15:17, Robert Sayre wrote: ... > A WG can agree with the AD that there is a problem, but disagree that > it needs to be solved in their document. Too often, the compromise > ends up being the insertion of text that satisfies the AD's concerns, > but disenfranchises the WG. The WG either ignores the text in > practice, or the document author couches the text in so many > qualifiers that it becomes easy to explain any implementation in terms > that make it seem conformant. The result is inaccurate or misleading > documentation of Internet technology. But it may be more harmful not to point out the issue at all, or not to specify a better-than-nothing solution. You have to consider the case of a relatively inexperienced implementer who may not know something that we believe is common knowledge. It's always open to the WG to propose a resolution of the DISCUSS that is radically different from what the discussing AD suggests, too. On 2007-01-02 13:04, Ralph Droms wrote: > I read Dave's words "clear statement of what actions must be taken to clear > the Discuss" not as requiring the specification of a complete fix, but > rather as an indication of what needs to happen to the draft. > Implementation details of meeting those requirements are left to the WG. I would generalize that slightly: the action may not even involve the draft itself. It's not unknown for a DISCUSS to be resolved by a promise to cover the issue in another draft. But I think we agree that a DISCUSS needs to be actionable in some way, and that is so obvious that we forgot to write it down. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf